Cinematic Speech – Free Expression vs. Dignity – Supreme Court evaluates the conflict between the filmmaker's right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the rights of persons with disabilities to dignity and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 21, and the RPwD Act – Emphasizes the need for sensitive portrayal of disabilities in films [Paras 1-70].

Derogatory Portrayal – Stereotypes – Court highlights the historically oppressive representation of persons with disabilities in media – Notes that while humour can be a tool for engagement, it must not reinforce harmful stereotypes – Distinguishes between 'disability humour' and 'disabling humour' [Paras 26-66].

Test of Proportionality – Balancing Rights – Court outlines that disparaging portrayals must be justified by the overall message of the film – If the portrayal of persons with disabilities is stereotypical but serves a broader, positive narrative, it may be permissible – Proportionality test applied to balance filmmaker’s free speech and rights of persons with disabilities [Paras 67-74].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition – Emphasizes the importance of considering the overall message of the film and the filmmaker’s intent – Recommends guidelines for sensitive portrayal of disabilities but refrains from judicial interference in certification decisions made by expert bodies [Paras 71-74].

Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly - Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, and 307 r/w 149 IPC - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences - Appellants' participation as part of the unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder established - No active role needed for conviction under Section 149 IPC [Paras 1-33].

Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Presence of appellants at the crime scene with other accused persons sufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC - Evidence of eye-witnesses substantiating appellants' presence and common intention - Conviction upheld despite no specific roles assigned to appellants [Paras 17-30].

Life Imprisonment - Minimum Sentence for Murder - Appellants' plea for reduction of sentence due to long incarceration rejected - Minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment - Appellants may apply for remission or premature release as per State policy [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Conviction and sentence upheld - Appellants may seek remission or premature release in accordance with State policy [Para 33].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Desertion – The appellant-husband sought a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion following a failed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Trial Court granted the divorce, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court found that the appellant had been deserted by the respondent without reasonable cause, meeting the grounds for desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act [Paras 1-16].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Compliance and Consequences – The appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was granted by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court, but the respondent failed to comply. This non-compliance was critical in establishing desertion [Paras 13-14].

Alimony – Lump Sum Settlement – The appellant's offer to pay Rs. 30 lakhs as a lump sum alimony was deemed reasonable. The decree for divorce would come into effect only upon payment of this amount [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the decree of divorce on grounds of desertion. The decree would become effective upon payment of Rs. 30 lakhs to the respondent as alimony [Paras 16].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Tillu @ Devi Singh and assault on Tularam – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court dismisses appeal, confirming the Appellant’s involvement and presence at the scene based on consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon [Paras 1-70].

Eyewitness Testimony – Consistency and Credibility – Supreme Court emphasizes the reliability of eyewitness accounts, noting the consistent identification of the Appellant and the corroborative medical evidence – Reiterates that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the core of prosecution’s case [Paras 20-51].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility under Section 32(1) of IEA – Statement of deceased Tularam recorded by Investigating Officer treated as dying declaration despite absence of medical fitness certificate – Court underscores that procedural lapses do not invalidate otherwise credible and voluntary dying declarations [Paras 62-69].

Disclosure Statement and Recovery – Application of Section 27 of IEA – Knife used in the crime recovered based on the Appellant’s disclosure statement – Court validates admissibility and relevance of recovery as crucial corroborative evidence [Paras 52-58].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender if on bail; otherwise, to serve the remainder of the sentence in custody [Paras 70-71].

Income Tax – TDS – Applicability of Section 206C – Assessee engaged in the manufacture and sale of arrack – Auctioning of retail vending rights by the state government – Assessing officer held that income tax should have been collected at source from the liquor vendors – High Court upheld the assessing officer’s decision – Supreme Court quashed the orders, stating that excise contractors are not "buyers" as defined under Section 206C​​.

Natural Justice – Principles of Natural Justice – Notice and Hearing – Orders under Section 206C(6) were passed without proper opportunity of hearing – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of following principles of natural justice even if the statute is silent​​.

Income Tax – Section 206C of the Income Tax Act – Overview of statutory requirements including TDS collection, payment to central government, and conditions under which tax must be collected​​.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the High Court set aside – Supreme Court held that Mysore Sales International Ltd. is not liable to collect TDS from the excise contractors under Section 206C​​.

Specific Performance – Refund of Advance Sale Consideration – Appellant sought specific performance of a sale agreement or, alternatively, refund of the advance paid – Trial Court directed refund of Rs. 18,00,000/- – High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 3,00,000/- – Supreme Court examines the evidence to determine the correctness of the High Court's findings [Paras 1-13].

Evidence – Proof of Payment – Supreme Court finds that the plaintiff failed to provide positive evidence to corroborate the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- as additional advance – Agreement and endorsement scrutinized – Lack of supporting documents and inconsistencies noted [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the High Court's modification of the refund amount – Confirms that the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- only, not Rs. 18,00,000/- as claimed [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of his roommate over a dispute regarding playing music – Trial court’s judgment upheld by the High Court – Supreme Court examines the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, including hostile witnesses, extra-judicial confessions, and dying declarations [Paras 1-15].

Eyewitness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Supreme Court finds that the testimonies of hostile witnesses were insufficient to support the prosecution’s case – Highlights inconsistencies and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime [Paras 4-14].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Reliability – Court questions the credibility of the extra-judicial confession made to PW-19, noting the absence of supporting evidence, such as phone records and the non-examination of PSI Mishra, who was allegedly present during the confession [Paras 6-8].

Dying Declaration – Doubtful Credibility – Supreme Court finds the dying declaration made to PW-24 unconvincing due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the deceased's condition at the time of the statement [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for murder as part of an unlawful assembly – Sessions Court and High Court upheld the conviction – Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with concurrent findings – Appellant and co-accused attacked victim with deadly weapons resulting in death – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Witness Credibility – Discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies – Court found minor inconsistencies immaterial – PW1 and PW2 corroborated each other on key facts – Hostile witness (PW4) did not impact prosecution case significantly – Appellant failed to discredit key witnesses [Paras 10-20].

Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Nature and location of injury – Single stab wound sufficient to cause death – Factors like weapon type, attack premeditation, and absence of provocation considered – Conduct of appellant met criteria under Section 300 IPC clauses (1) and (3) [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Bail order vacated – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence [Paras 27-28].

Suspension of Sentence – Petitioner’s plea for suspension of sentence rejected by High Court – Petitioner aged seventy and 90% visually impaired – High Court’s failure to consider age, health, and two years already served – Supreme Court emphasizes need for application of correct principles for suspension of fixed-term sentences – Casual and mechanical approach by High Court criticized [Paras 1-6].

Bail Pending Appeal – Petitioner’s health and age significant factors – High Court’s orders lacked reasoning and consideration of exceptional circumstances – Supreme Court orders release on bail pending appeal with conditions as deemed fit by trial court [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the trial court [Para 8].